MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Lifecycle Engineering of Infrastructure: An Essential Approach to Engineering for a Sustainable Africa

2018· article· en· W2882974999 on OpenAlexaff
Israel Dunmade, O.S.I. Fayomi

Bibliographic record

VenueIOP Conference Series Materials Science and Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPublic-Private Partnership Projects
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBasic needsSustainable developmentStandard of livingBusinessUniversal designPotable waterEngineeringEnvironmental planningRisk analysis (engineering)Economic growthEconomicsPovertyGeographyPolitical scienceEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Looking at African Development in comparison with other continents, it can be concluded that there are still so much to do to achieve comfortable standard of living for the majority of the inhabitants. While a lot of steps has been taken and appreciable progress has been made in many places, majority are yet to have access to stable and affordable basic necessities of life such as potable water, stable electricity and comfortable accommodation. This study examined various engineering approaches being used and those that could be used to make the enumerated basic necessities of life accessible to majority of Africans at affordable price. Our evaluation revealed appropriate lifecycle engineering as a feasible approach to achieving the desired goal. This research and its findings will assist Africans and other nations in understanding African infrastructure problems and how best to address the technical problems in a sustainable manner.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIOP Conference Series Materials Science and EngineeringSame topicPublic-Private Partnership ProjectsFrench-language works237,207